Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies UNRWA and Palestinian Refugees stated that Bolbol overrules El-Ali; however, neither the UK nor any other jurisdiction has yet adapted domestic law to the broader ruling of El Kott, so its impact on Palestinian refugee claims remains to be seen. The full meaning and scope of Article 1D are revealed in the Refugee Convention’s travaux preparatoires. Although Article 1D is most commonly understood as an exclusion clause for Palestinian refugees, it may be most accurately described as a contingent inclusion clause: its first sentence operates to exclude Palestinians, but its second sentence re-includes them into the Refugee Convention upon the occurrence of certain contingencies. The Arab delegates who proposed the provision considered Palestinians to be different from all other refugees. First, they claimed that ‘the existence of Palestine refugees . . . was the direct result of a decision taken by the United Nations itself, with full knowledge of the consequences. The Palestine refugees were therefore a direct responsibility on the part of the United Nations and could not be placed in the general category of refugees without betrayal of that responsibility’ (UN GAOR, 1950, para 46). Second, the Arab delegates viewed UNHCR and the new refugee treaty as essentially tasked with resettlement. The Palestinians, however, demanded and were entitled to repatriation: ‘the obstacle to their repatriation was not dissatisfaction with their homeland [as required by Article 15